Low calories does not equal healthy
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
#1 assumes pizza isn't healthy (which again, would depend on countless variables)
#2 assumes egg whites are healthy (ditto)
Niether of those say that, though. And using that line of thought, shouldn't we assume the OP thinks low calorie equals unhealthy?
They don't directly say it, but they imply it.
Why would one ask how to make pizza healthy without the implicit assumption that it isn't healthy in its current state?
Why would one state they only eat healthy foods like egg whites without the implicit assumption that egg whites are healthy?
Hard to say without reading the whole post for context.
Why would someone order us to stop telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories with the implicit assumption that low calorie foods are unhealthy?
Seems a very similar assumption to make.
I guess I'm reading the 'order' slightly differently.
I don't think the OP is assuming low cal foods are unhealthy. Nor do I think the OP is assuming low cal foods are healthy. That's the point. Without the additional context one cannot make that value judgment...so they're requesting/ordering people to stop making the judgement (in either direction) without the supporting context. At the risk of speaking for the OP, the way I read their post, they would similarly order people to stop saying low cal foods are unhealthy (were it common for that to be said, which clearly it isn't).0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
#1 assumes pizza isn't healthy (which again, would depend on countless variables)
#2 assumes egg whites are healthy (ditto)
Niether of those say that, though. And using that line of thought, shouldn't we assume the OP thinks low calorie equals unhealthy?
They don't directly say it, but they imply it.
Why would one ask how to make pizza healthy without the implicit assumption that it isn't healthy in its current state?
Why would one state they only eat healthy foods like egg whites without the implicit assumption that egg whites are healthy?
Hard to say without reading the whole post for context.
Why would someone order us to stop telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories with the implicit assumption that low calorie foods are unhealthy?
Seems a very similar assumption to make.
I guess I'm reading the 'order' slightly differently.
I don't think the OP is assuming low cal foods are unhealthy. Nor do I think the OP is assuming low cal foods are healthy. That's the point. Without the additional context one cannot make that value judgment...so they're requesting/ordering people to stop making the judgement (in either direction) without the supporting context. At the risk of speaking for the OP, the way I read their post, they would similarly order people to stop saying low cal foods are unhealthy (were it common for that to be said, which clearly it isn't).
I think low calorie foods are mostly healthy.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
#1 assumes pizza isn't healthy (which again, would depend on countless variables)
#2 assumes egg whites are healthy (ditto)
Niether of those say that, though. And using that line of thought, shouldn't we assume the OP thinks low calorie equals unhealthy?
They don't directly say it, but they imply it.
Why would one ask how to make pizza healthy without the implicit assumption that it isn't healthy in its current state?
Why would one state they only eat healthy foods like egg whites without the implicit assumption that egg whites are healthy?
Hard to say without reading the whole post for context.
Why would someone order us to stop telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories with the implicit assumption that low calorie foods are unhealthy?
Seems a very similar assumption to make.
I guess I'm reading the 'order' slightly differently.
I don't think the OP is assuming low cal foods are unhealthy. Nor do I think the OP is assuming low cal foods are healthy. That's the point. Without the additional context one cannot make that value judgment...so they're requesting/ordering people to stop making the judgement (in either direction) without the supporting context. At the risk of speaking for the OP, the way I read their post, they would similarly order people to stop saying low cal foods are unhealthy (were it common for that to be said, which clearly it isn't).
I think low calorie foods are mostly healthy.
If you're making that point for yourself in the context of your own diet, I have no quarrel.
If you're making that point as a blanket statement applicable to everyone, I disagree 100%0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
#1 assumes pizza isn't healthy (which again, would depend on countless variables)
#2 assumes egg whites are healthy (ditto)
Niether of those say that, though. And using that line of thought, shouldn't we assume the OP thinks low calorie equals unhealthy?
They don't directly say it, but they imply it.
Why would one ask how to make pizza healthy without the implicit assumption that it isn't healthy in its current state?
Why would one state they only eat healthy foods like egg whites without the implicit assumption that egg whites are healthy?
Hard to say without reading the whole post for context.
Why would someone order us to stop telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories with the implicit assumption that low calorie foods are unhealthy?
Seems a very similar assumption to make.
I guess I'm reading the 'order' slightly differently.
I don't think the OP is assuming low cal foods are unhealthy. Nor do I think the OP is assuming low cal foods are healthy. That's the point. Without the additional context one cannot make that value judgment...so they're requesting/ordering people to stop making the judgement (in either direction) without the supporting context. At the risk of speaking for the OP, the way I read their post, they would similarly order people to stop saying low cal foods are unhealthy (were it common for that to be said, which clearly it isn't).
I think low calorie foods are mostly healthy.
If you're making that point for yourself in the context of your own diet, I have no quarrel.
If you're making that point as a blanket statement applicable to everyone, I disagree 100%
I disagree with most blanket statements. Like saying stop telling people low calorie foods are healthy, because often they are.
Although since my statement said "mostly" I think it works even as a blanket statement.
0 -
Pretty sure this is the context that's missing: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10252942/coffee0
-
EatwellLivehappy wrote: »Kalikel,
I appreciate your insight but I'm not talking about people who just want to lose weight. I'm talking about people who are misusing the word. Low calorie is not interchangeable with healthy. That is the topic.
It depends how someone uses the word, imo.
If someone says that " low cal " yogurt is automatically " healthy " because it's low cal, or " low cal " salad dressing is " healthier ", I 100% agree with you.
However, if I say that my salad ( lettuce, tomato, cucumber, red onion, 3 hard boiled quail eggs, 80gr of tuna with lemon juice and lots of black pepper ) of just 230 calories is not only low cal, but also healthy, I think you would not be able to prove me wrong. Unless you mention people who have a quail egg, tuna, lemon juice or general salad fixings allergy.....for them it would be an unhealthy salad. But you know what I mean....generally speaking ...
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Pretty sure this is the context that's missing: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10252942/coffee
That just makes it more odd for me since I didn't see anyone saying low calorie = healthy in that thread.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Pretty sure this is the context that's missing: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10252942/coffee
Really? That seems pretty benign, 8 responses on a comment about switching from energy drinks to black coffee?
Surely that isn't enough to provoke this whole separate tirade that just because something is low cal doesn't mean it is healthy... in fact, I didn't see those words in the other post, other than from this OP?
Help me out OP, I must be missing something. I don't disagree with you that low cal does not automatically equal "healthy" but I generally try not to use the word "healthy" to describe an individual food to begin with.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
#1 assumes pizza isn't healthy (which again, would depend on countless variables)
#2 assumes egg whites are healthy (ditto)
Niether of those say that, though. And using that line of thought, shouldn't we assume the OP thinks low calorie equals unhealthy?
They don't directly say it, but they imply it.
Why would one ask how to make pizza healthy without the implicit assumption that it isn't healthy in its current state?
Why would one state they only eat healthy foods like egg whites without the implicit assumption that egg whites are healthy?
Hard to say without reading the whole post for context.
Why would someone order us to stop telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories with the implicit assumption that low calorie foods are unhealthy?
Seems a very similar assumption to make.
I guess I'm reading the 'order' slightly differently.
I don't think the OP is assuming low cal foods are unhealthy. Nor do I think the OP is assuming low cal foods are healthy. That's the point. Without the additional context one cannot make that value judgment...so they're requesting/ordering people to stop making the judgement (in either direction) without the supporting context. At the risk of speaking for the OP, the way I read their post, they would similarly order people to stop saying low cal foods are unhealthy (were it common for that to be said, which clearly it isn't).
I think low calorie foods are mostly healthy.
If you're making that point for yourself in the context of your own diet, I have no quarrel.
If you're making that point as a blanket statement applicable to everyone, I disagree 100%
I disagree with most blanket statements. Like saying stop telling people low calorie foods are healthy, because often they are.
Although since my statement said "mostly" I think it works even as a blanket statement.
Well, the existence of an entire board filled with people on MFP looking to gain weight would seem to prove your 'blanket statement' incorrect as a blanket statement.
The point seems so obvious that I won't see the need to debate the issue any further, so feel free to have the last word.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
#1 assumes pizza isn't healthy (which again, would depend on countless variables)
#2 assumes egg whites are healthy (ditto)
Niether of those say that, though. And using that line of thought, shouldn't we assume the OP thinks low calorie equals unhealthy?
They don't directly say it, but they imply it.
Why would one ask how to make pizza healthy without the implicit assumption that it isn't healthy in its current state?
Why would one state they only eat healthy foods like egg whites without the implicit assumption that egg whites are healthy?
Hard to say without reading the whole post for context.
Why would someone order us to stop telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories with the implicit assumption that low calorie foods are unhealthy?
Seems a very similar assumption to make.
I guess I'm reading the 'order' slightly differently.
I don't think the OP is assuming low cal foods are unhealthy. Nor do I think the OP is assuming low cal foods are healthy. That's the point. Without the additional context one cannot make that value judgment...so they're requesting/ordering people to stop making the judgement (in either direction) without the supporting context. At the risk of speaking for the OP, the way I read their post, they would similarly order people to stop saying low cal foods are unhealthy (were it common for that to be said, which clearly it isn't).
I think low calorie foods are mostly healthy.
If you're making that point for yourself in the context of your own diet, I have no quarrel.
If you're making that point as a blanket statement applicable to everyone, I disagree 100%
I disagree with most blanket statements. Like saying stop telling people low calorie foods are healthy, because often they are.
Although since my statement said "mostly" I think it works even as a blanket statement.
Well, the existence of an entire board filled with people on MFP looking to gain weight would seem to prove your 'blanket statement' incorrect as a blanket statement.
The point seems so obvious that I won't see the need to debate the issue any further, so feel free to have the last word.
Low calorie foods are not unhealthy for those trying to gain weight. Even if ALL their food is low calorie it wouldn't necessarily mean their diet was low calorie.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?0 -
TrailBlazzinMN wrote: »"Most people think the metabolism works like this:
Cut calories → Lose weight → Have a balanced metabolism
It actually works like this:
Get a balanced metabolism → Naturally reduce calories → Lose weight effortlessly" - Dr Jade Tata
Sometimes you need to eat more than what MFP says to get a balanced metabolism. That is the most important aspect of a healthy body. Without that, skinny fat will more than likely rear it's ugly head. Some people can get away with the former equation but usually it won't last for long. If you are 50 pounds away from your fat loss goal and you hit a plateau while only consuming 1200 calories, are you going to cut more? Workout more? What if you are already working out an hour a day?
Our body is not a machine. The law of thermodynamics doesn't apply fully to the human body. According to this study, "a calorie is a calorie" actually VIOLATES the second law of thermodynamics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/?tools=bot
I know I'm going to regret responding to this, but seriously. No.
That paper you reference gives me a headache. Logic fail. Whomever reviewed it and allowed it to pass should be smacked upside the head.
I will also add that when a paper whose main topic is centered around X is published in a journal that is not focused on X, the quality of review is going to plummet because the reviewers don't know a whole lot about X. So don't look at a paper arguing points of physics in the Journal of Nutrition and think it's at all likely there's been rigorous or even half-knowledgeable review.0 -
I know I'm going to regret responding to this, but seriously. No.
That paper you reference gives me a headache. Logic fail. Whomever reviewed it and allowed it to pass should be smacked upside the head.
I will also add that when a paper whose main topic is centered around X is published in a journal that is not focused on X, the quality of review is going to plummet because the reviewers don't know a whole lot about X. So don't look at a paper arguing points of physics in the Journal of Nutrition and think it's at all likely there's been rigorous or even half-knowledgeable review.
*shakes head*0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
0 -
extra_medium wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
Or they could just eat less rice.
I do agree with the point re context. However, I'm sympathetic to jruzer's POV here.
One of the purposes of food (imposed by humans) is to supply micronutrients and another is to supply the energy we need to live (calories). I understand the shorthand where foods are more or less healthy based on how dense they are in micronutrients, but that goes along with OP's point -- that a food is low calorie doesn't mean it has lots of micronutrients. Diet Coke isn't "healthy" just because it's low cal (IMO, it's not unhealthy either, it's neutral). Nuts aren't "unhealthy" because they are high in calories, as they provide other things that are good for us.
Taking a food which basically serves to provide sustenance calories (your basic white rice, bread) and modifying it to have fewer calories seems to me basically like creating chips made with that disgusting fat-like stuff that we cannot digest -- the food does not become more "healthy." It simply becomes less efficient at fulfilling its traditional function, serving as a staple crop for the provision of needed calories.
Yes, for people in most post-industrial societies (or whatever we are supposed to call it) and increasingly in places that are getting wealthier and have larger middle classes like India and China there is a reversal of the usual issue -- we don't have too few calories for our activity levels, but too many available.
Rather than trying to create food that we can eat huge amounts of without getting any calories from it (the Arctic Zeroing of the world), maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat.
(And the many places, like the US, that would involve going back to more traditional ideas about what an appropriate amount of food is, how frequently we need to eat, etc., IMO. We eat recreationally all the time in many cases -- does this become healthy if we invent good tasting cardboard to be eating that has no calories?)
At best, it would be neutral, not "healthy," IMO.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
Or they could just eat less rice.
I do agree with the point re context. However, I'm sympathetic to jruzer's POV here.
One of the purposes of food (imposed by humans) is to supply micronutrients and another is to supply the energy we need to live (calories). I understand the shorthand where foods are more or less healthy based on how dense they are in micronutrients, but that goes along with OP's point -- that a food is low calorie doesn't mean it has lots of micronutrients. Diet Coke isn't "healthy" just because it's low cal (IMO, it's not unhealthy either, it's neutral). Nuts aren't "unhealthy" because they are high in calories, as they provide other things that are good for us.
Taking a food which basically serves to provide sustenance calories (your basic white rice, bread) and modifying it to have fewer calories seems to me basically like creating chips made with that disgusting fat-like stuff that we cannot digest -- the food does not become more "healthy." It simply becomes less efficient at fulfilling its traditional function, serving as a staple crop for the provision of needed calories.
Yes, for people in most post-industrial societies (or whatever we are supposed to call it) and increasingly in places that are getting wealthier and have larger middle classes like India and China there is a reversal of the usual issue -- we don't have too few calories for our activity levels, but too many available.
Rather than trying to create food that we can eat huge amounts of without getting any calories from it (the Arctic Zeroing of the world), maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat.
(And the many places, like the US, that would involve going back to more traditional ideas about what an appropriate amount of food is, how frequently we need to eat, etc., IMO. We eat recreationally all the time in many cases -- does this become healthy if we invent good tasting cardboard to be eating that has no calories?)
At best, it would be neutral, not "healthy," IMO.
In the example of rice I think it does make the food healthier.
Rice (white or brown) in itself offers very little nutrients for the calorific value, so to further reduce those nutrients is very insignificant.
The benefit comes from the reduction in calories, but more importantly the increase in resistance starch, which feeds our gut flora in a positive way.
Simply reducing calories doesn't make the food healthier, agreed. But with rice I think it does.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
I'm unsure of your point or what your grandfather, or any other person having trouble obtaining food, has to do with this discussion. You (or someone) used that thread as an example of people saying something low calorie was healthy when it wasn't. I don't see how the rice was made less healthy or unhealthy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
Or they could just eat less rice.
I do agree with the point re context. However, I'm sympathetic to jruzer's POV here.
One of the purposes of food (imposed by humans) is to supply micronutrients and another is to supply the energy we need to live (calories). I understand the shorthand where foods are more or less healthy based on how dense they are in micronutrients, but that goes along with OP's point -- that a food is low calorie doesn't mean it has lots of micronutrients. Diet Coke isn't "healthy" just because it's low cal (IMO, it's not unhealthy either, it's neutral). Nuts aren't "unhealthy" because they are high in calories, as they provide other things that are good for us.
Taking a food which basically serves to provide sustenance calories (your basic white rice, bread) and modifying it to have fewer calories seems to me basically like creating chips made with that disgusting fat-like stuff that we cannot digest -- the food does not become more "healthy." It simply becomes less efficient at fulfilling its traditional function, serving as a staple crop for the provision of needed calories.
Yes, for people in most post-industrial societies (or whatever we are supposed to call it) and increasingly in places that are getting wealthier and have larger middle classes like India and China there is a reversal of the usual issue -- we don't have too few calories for our activity levels, but too many available.
Rather than trying to create food that we can eat huge amounts of without getting any calories from it (the Arctic Zeroing of the world), maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat.
(And the many places, like the US, that would involve going back to more traditional ideas about what an appropriate amount of food is, how frequently we need to eat, etc., IMO. We eat recreationally all the time in many cases -- does this become healthy if we invent good tasting cardboard to be eating that has no calories?)
At best, it would be neutral, not "healthy," IMO.
This is just a lot of talk about personal preference.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
Or they could just eat less rice.
I do agree with the point re context. However, I'm sympathetic to jruzer's POV here.
One of the purposes of food (imposed by humans) is to supply micronutrients and another is to supply the energy we need to live (calories). I understand the shorthand where foods are more or less healthy based on how dense they are in micronutrients, but that goes along with OP's point -- that a food is low calorie doesn't mean it has lots of micronutrients. Diet Coke isn't "healthy" just because it's low cal (IMO, it's not unhealthy either, it's neutral). Nuts aren't "unhealthy" because they are high in calories, as they provide other things that are good for us.
Taking a food which basically serves to provide sustenance calories (your basic white rice, bread) and modifying it to have fewer calories seems to me basically like creating chips made with that disgusting fat-like stuff that we cannot digest -- the food does not become more "healthy." It simply becomes less efficient at fulfilling its traditional function, serving as a staple crop for the provision of needed calories.
Yes, for people in most post-industrial societies (or whatever we are supposed to call it) and increasingly in places that are getting wealthier and have larger middle classes like India and China there is a reversal of the usual issue -- we don't have too few calories for our activity levels, but too many available.
Rather than trying to create food that we can eat huge amounts of without getting any calories from it (the Arctic Zeroing of the world), maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat.
(And the many places, like the US, that would involve going back to more traditional ideas about what an appropriate amount of food is, how frequently we need to eat, etc., IMO. We eat recreationally all the time in many cases -- does this become healthy if we invent good tasting cardboard to be eating that has no calories?)
At best, it would be neutral, not "healthy," IMO.
In the example of rice I think it does make the food healthier.
Rice (white or brown) in itself offers very little nutrients for the calorific value, so to further reduce those nutrients is very insignificant.
The benefit comes from the reduction in calories, but more importantly the increase in resistance starch, which feeds our gut flora in a positive way.
Simply reducing calories doesn't make the food healthier, agreed. But with rice I think it does.
The traditional use of rice was as an inexpensive way to supply needed calories. Altering it to have fewer calories seems to make it less "healthy" -- in the sense it is less able to feed a population. Sure, it allows me to eat more, but it seems more sensible for me to just eat less.
But the bigger issue is that a food can't be healthy or unhealthy. Eating 300 calories of rice vs. 100 calories of rice isn't more or less healthy unless you see how many calories I've eaten overall, what the rest of my diet contains, and how many calories I need. For a low income person with a physical job or a marathon runner, the calories in rice might be a plus.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
Or they could just eat less rice.
I do agree with the point re context. However, I'm sympathetic to jruzer's POV here.
One of the purposes of food (imposed by humans) is to supply micronutrients and another is to supply the energy we need to live (calories). I understand the shorthand where foods are more or less healthy based on how dense they are in micronutrients, but that goes along with OP's point -- that a food is low calorie doesn't mean it has lots of micronutrients. Diet Coke isn't "healthy" just because it's low cal (IMO, it's not unhealthy either, it's neutral). Nuts aren't "unhealthy" because they are high in calories, as they provide other things that are good for us.
Taking a food which basically serves to provide sustenance calories (your basic white rice, bread) and modifying it to have fewer calories seems to me basically like creating chips made with that disgusting fat-like stuff that we cannot digest -- the food does not become more "healthy." It simply becomes less efficient at fulfilling its traditional function, serving as a staple crop for the provision of needed calories.
Yes, for people in most post-industrial societies (or whatever we are supposed to call it) and increasingly in places that are getting wealthier and have larger middle classes like India and China there is a reversal of the usual issue -- we don't have too few calories for our activity levels, but too many available.
Rather than trying to create food that we can eat huge amounts of without getting any calories from it (the Arctic Zeroing of the world), maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat.
(And the many places, like the US, that would involve going back to more traditional ideas about what an appropriate amount of food is, how frequently we need to eat, etc., IMO. We eat recreationally all the time in many cases -- does this become healthy if we invent good tasting cardboard to be eating that has no calories?)
At best, it would be neutral, not "healthy," IMO.
This is just a lot of talk about personal preference.
No, none of it is about personal preference.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »extra_medium wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Usually I'm pretty nit-picky about specifics, but the OP was pretty clear to me. We see examples of things like this all the time:
- "How do I make pizza healthy?"
- "I only eat healthy stuff like egg whites"
- How about the post we just discussed yesterday where making rice less nutritious was called making it "healthier?"
Individual foods (with a few exceptions) aren't healthy or unhealthy; diets are.
I don't know anything about the rice thing you mention, but what's wrong with the other question and statement?
For reference, here is the rice thread to which I referred:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/33978952
The assertion is that reducing calories makes the food "healthier." My visceral reaction is that making food less nutritious is the opposite of making it healthier.
What nutrients were lost?
It appears that the calories available to digestion were lost; I haven't read too closely but considering that it's rice I would assume the nutrients that were lost were carbohydrates.
That is also my understanding. Some of the starch is no longer absorbed. I don't see how that makes it less healthy.
I didn't say it made it less healthy. I was saying it didn't make it "healthier."
As I said in that thread, and in other threads, I'm still kind of astonished about what seems to me to be a really skewed view of food in our culture--and this is from a long-time fat guy who never met a candy bar he didn't like.
I remember my grandfather telling me a story about being grateful about getting a few biscuits and a little honey to eat for dinner some nights, because there was no other food. Try telling him that reducing the calories by 20% made the food healthier!
"Healthy" or "unhealthy" are terms that don't mean much without context. For your grandfather, reducing already severely restricted calories would not be very healthy. For most people on this site who are trying to lose weight and need to cut calories, it could definitely be considered healthier.
Or they could just eat less rice.
I do agree with the point re context. However, I'm sympathetic to jruzer's POV here.
One of the purposes of food (imposed by humans) is to supply micronutrients and another is to supply the energy we need to live (calories). I understand the shorthand where foods are more or less healthy based on how dense they are in micronutrients, but that goes along with OP's point -- that a food is low calorie doesn't mean it has lots of micronutrients. Diet Coke isn't "healthy" just because it's low cal (IMO, it's not unhealthy either, it's neutral). Nuts aren't "unhealthy" because they are high in calories, as they provide other things that are good for us.
Taking a food which basically serves to provide sustenance calories (your basic white rice, bread) and modifying it to have fewer calories seems to me basically like creating chips made with that disgusting fat-like stuff that we cannot digest -- the food does not become more "healthy." It simply becomes less efficient at fulfilling its traditional function, serving as a staple crop for the provision of needed calories.
Yes, for people in most post-industrial societies (or whatever we are supposed to call it) and increasingly in places that are getting wealthier and have larger middle classes like India and China there is a reversal of the usual issue -- we don't have too few calories for our activity levels, but too many available.
Rather than trying to create food that we can eat huge amounts of without getting any calories from it (the Arctic Zeroing of the world), maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat.
(And the many places, like the US, that would involve going back to more traditional ideas about what an appropriate amount of food is, how frequently we need to eat, etc., IMO. We eat recreationally all the time in many cases -- does this become healthy if we invent good tasting cardboard to be eating that has no calories?)
At best, it would be neutral, not "healthy," IMO.
This is just a lot of talk about personal preference.
No, none of it is about personal preference.
They could just eat less - yeah, if they want to eat less
maybe we need to just learn to adjust our ideas of how much to eat - Yeah, if they want to adjust how much they eat0 -
But none of that has to do with it being more "healthy" to alter a food to have fewer calories.
I realize the irony that my position is shading into a "clean eating" one here, so I will drop it.0 -
TrailBlazzinMN wrote: »
2nd time I've seen that "paper" advertised today, so I'll say here, what I said in the other thread.
Considering they misdefined the laws of thermodynamics (except the first), that "paper" is horse *kitten*.
0 -
EatwellLivehappy wrote: »just wanted to put a general note out there because I see it all the time.... I know most of us here are trying to lose weight but please refrain from telling people that something is "good" or "healthy" for you because it is low in calories. Thank you!
Im on the forums a lot and cant say I ever see this.
So the OP is referring to another thread? I am fortunate to have missed it.
In terms of controlling calories and being within a limit then all things being equal lower calories is better. That would mean you get the same benefits such as nutrition, taste etc for fewer calories.
That doesnt mean calorie dense is bad as long as you understand it means you need to be more conscious about portion control. Still dont think I see it very often.0 -
personally, i see a whole lot of people confusing calories with nutritional quality. avocados and nuts seem to come up a lot..."i thought these were supposed to be good for you, but they have a lot of calories and fat". there is an incredible lack of general nutritional knowledge out there...sometimes it's actually quite frightening how ignorant people are of general, rudimentary nutrition. hell, a lot of people don't even know what a calorie actually is.0
-
Perhaps I just filter all that out as background noise. One of the reasons is because peoples priorities are on hitting their target mixed in with I can eat anything I like message. Peoples lack of knowledge tends to be high on most forums.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions